Tish James speaking at the rally.

"Yes! Yes! Yes! Come, come, ready?" Councilwoman Tish James hurriedly exclaimed when we started to ask her about today's Supreme Court ruling on health care reform before a rally celebrating the vote on living wage legislation coming later today.

"So, today I like Roberts. I'm happy that the mandate was upheld. This is a great day for democracy, it's a great day for the budget, it's a great day for childcare and after school programs," she answered. "So, overall, today's a proud day!"

"It's a good day. It's a good day," Stuart Appelbaum, the president of the RWDSU, agreed when asked the same question. "We're doing living wage in New York and the Supreme Court agreed with the Obama administration on health care reform."

The rally for living wage thus proceeded in a jubilant mood. The votes to override Mayor Michael Bloomberg's veto have already been assembled and the outcome of today's City Council session already determined.

"Today is a great day of course, with what happened with the Supreme Court in Washington, a very important day for people of modest means throughout the country," Councilman Oliver Koppell said in front of the rallying advocates. "And what we're doing today is a movement in the same direction to try and ensure that ... there is at least a little bit of justice between those who have modest means and those who have wealth and power."

For her part, Ms. James spoke like a preacher when her turn came to stand in front of the podium.

"So I hold up this tattered and torn will of the people, because it represents their tattered lives!" she declared, displaying a ripped sign containing advocates' signatures. "Those who have been living under the weight of poverty wages, this is symbolic of their lives. ... Today, we stand up for justice! Today, justice rains down!"

"Now, look," Ms. Quinn said, turning around and staring silently at the crowd behind her for a good five seconds.

"That's not appropriate. You stand here talking about democracy and wanting people to listen," she continued. "In a democracy people have the right to have different views, and they do not -- we do not -- have the right to then call them names. So I would just ask if that's what this protest is about, I'll go right back on inside."

She proceeded to ask the protester in question to apologize, but upon being greeted with awkward silence from the crowd, decided she wanted to have no further part in the demonstration.

"Congratulations on the bill, I'm not going to participate in any name-calling," she concluded.

She then walked off.

Watch for yourself below:

Mayor Bloomberg speaking at the Barclays Center construction site.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg's veto of City Council Speaker Christine Quinn's prevailing wage bill was the hot topic at his press conference today announcing a plan to fill 2,000 jobs at the future home of the Brooklyn Nets, the Barclays Center arena. Though he fielded several questions about the bill today, Mr. Bloomberg said he doesn't expect to be talking about the issue when he attends Ms. Quinn's wedding May 19.

Ms. Quinn reportedly modified the bill in order to make sure several developments, including Hudson Yards, went through and, at the press conference, New York Times reporter Kate Taylor asked the mayor why he thinks Ms. Quinn supports the bill if she seemingly recognize it would discourage certain developments.

"I would suggest that you address that question to the Speaker," Mayor Bloomberg said. "All I know is, I'm going to her wedding, and we're going to have a good time and I don't think that living wage is going to come up as a subject at the wedding."

Mayor Bloomberg vetoed the bill, which would raise wages for workers on city-subsidized projects, yesterday. Ms. Quinn and the Council are expected to override his veto. Generally, Mayor Bloomberg and Ms. Quinn, who is almost certainly running to be the next occupant of City Hall next year, are seen as close allies, however, she blasted his veto of the bill in a lengthy press release that mentioned Mr. Bloomberg's support for a 2002 law that created "prevailing and living wage requirements for home health aides, day care workers, and some building service workers whose companies have contracts with the City." Mr. Bloomberg was asked about that law at today's press conference and he essentially disavowed it.

"You cannot go and change the marketplace. We have a worldwide market and companies have to afford the labor or they will not go and hire," Mr. Bloomberg said. "I'm in favor of raising the minimum wage because it does it for everyone. ... We all want to see people be able to earn greater wages, higher wages and salaries, but the way to raise their salaries is not for the govermnent to impose legislative mandates on some businesses and not others."

Mayor Bloomberg, who pointed out "we have created more jobs in New York City at a faster rate than any place in the rest of the country" said he planned to deal with the job market by continuing to encourage investment and growth by investing city funds in projects like the Barclays Center.

"What we're going to continue to do is to try to invest what we can, and then if some companies like this right where we're standing, if they want to make a deal with their employees to pay more, they have a right to do that," he said. "It just shouldn't be the government forcing people to do that."

Even if it is eventually made law, the prevailing wage bill would not affect the Barclays Center as that deal is already in place. Mayor Bloomberg was still asked whether the wages at the Barclays Center were high enough that they would have been acceptable under a hypothetical prevailing wage law.

"I don't know what the wages are, but they're competitive," he said.

Robert Walsh, commissioner of the City's Department of Small Business Services, chimed in to elaborate.

"Theyr'e going to vary based on the skill set, the good thing about this, is it's not just entry level jobs," he said.

Real estate developer and Nets co-owner Bruce Ratner, who spearheaded the project, said "about 90 percent" of the jobs at the Barclays Center would be part time. Priority hiring for the Barclays Center jobs will be for local residents.

"The opening of the Barclays Center is exciting for all New Yorkers--not only because of the great events it will host, but also because of the new jobs it will create," Mayor Bloomberg said.

Dan Cantor at the paid sick day rally

The dust has barely settled on the grand living wage compromise and progressive forces are already mobilizing for their next initiative. On the steps of City Hall today, City Council Members and labor leaders announced what it would be: a bill requiring businesses to give their employees paid sick days off.

"We were here a year ago. We got close, we thought we were going to finally see passage about a year ago," Dan Cantor, the Executive Director of the Working Family, announced. "Politics is hard, so we come back now, a year later."

Things have changed, Mr. Cantor insisted, citing other localities that have passed similar bills, and the Occupy Wall Street protests energizing the public.

Democrats also contend that both legislative tweaks and the political environment make things much more favorable for paid sick day advocates this time around than the start of 2011, when Council Speaker Chris Quinn shelved the legislation.

"I think there’s going to be enormous pressure on Christine to do something here," a Democratic insider argued. "The compromises that the bill supporters laid out here today are pretty big. And they take away the main thing that she was hanging her defense of inaction on, that there was no carve out for small business."

Advocates believe that an amended version of law year's bill substantially reduces its impact on small businesses. The bill won't apply to businesses with fewer than five employees, or new businesses with fewer than twenty. It'll also have increased flexibility, such as allowing vacation days to count towards paid sick day requirements.

For her part, Speaker Quinn has not taken a position on the bill's amendments but expressed her skepticism of the overarching effort. "I’ve not yet seen the full amendments ... so I cannot comment on those," she said at a press conference this afternoon. "As I said over a year or so ago ... although this goal is laudable, it's not one that I can support because I think it is one that will cost us jobs and cost us small businesses and their future in these tough economic times."

Democrats also argue that the Paid Sick Time bill provides them a number of additional messaging advantages over their living wage fight. Notably, paid sick days are something most voters would find relatable, while the living wage legislation, affecting city-subsidized development projects, is a harder sell to the average person on the street. "On a fundamental level, it’s just a hard one to find a good argument against," the Democratic insider added about the new effort. "It polls very well among Democratic primary voters that are sort of up for grabs in 2013."

Indeed, the 2013 Mayoral race is unquestionably a factor in the politics of the paid sick day bill. Speaker Quinn is a leading contender for Gracie Mansion, and two other top contenders made sure to let it be known that they firmly support the effort.

"This is a matter of profound economic urgency, especially for struggling families in the outer boroughs," one such mayoral candidate, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, said in a statement. "I applaud Council Member Gale Brewer and the New York Paid Leave Coalition for laying out a new compromise today that will increase productivity and help small businesses protect their bottom line. With past concerns laid to rest, we owe it to working families to act now."

And Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, another likely candidate for the city's top job, sent out a reminder that the Borough President "has been a leader in the fight to pass paid-sick leave since he assumed office in 2006," citing statements he's made over the years on behalf of paid sick leave legislation.

Watch today's paid sick day rally below:

David Storobin's Wednesday campaign office opening was crowded.

The Conservative Party endorsed David Storobin for the special election to replace Carl Kruger.

The Democratic candidate, Lew Fidler, swore to be more ethical than Kruger.

Storobin launched his campaign website.

City & State looks at a Storobin tweet, which is disputed.

Nydia Velázquez has a libertarian Democratic opponent.

Bob Turner visits Israel.

Mark Murphy will announce for Congress next Wednesday.

Senate Democrats raise a million dollars.

Dean Skelos raises a decent chunk of change.

Here's some additional campaign filings.

More candidates eye the seat belonging to retiring State Senator Oppenheimer.

The Manhattan Democratic Party gets behind the living wage legislation.

Scott Stringer weighs in as well.

Tom DiNapoli warns of lagging tax collections.

Mayor Bloomberg praised President Obama's plan to consolidate federal agencies.

An NYC resident looking at running for Senate in Nebraska gets snarky with Karl Rove.

Peter Vallone comments on Jay-Z.

David Freedlander went on NBC last night to discuss the State of the City speech.

On the presidential election:

Republican attacks on Mitt Romney are not helping Mitt Romney.

Romney's leading in the latest South Carolina poll.

Gingrich is "now out-Mitting Mitt."

A breakdown of potential GOP vice presidential candidates.

Rick Perry loses his lawsuit aiming to put him on the Virginia ballot.

Voters don't know very much about the Republican candidates.

More young women are involved in 2012 campaign coverage.

Stephen Colbert is getting involved as well:

The new bill will not require companies in buildings in which the developer has received subsidies from the city to pay a living wage; instead, only those employees of the developers in those buildings will receive the living wage.

"I believe it is fair and appropriate for government to place requirements on a business that has voluntarily entered into an economic development agreement with the city," Ms. Quinn said. "At the end of the day, they have a choice as to whether or not they want both the money offered to them and the wage requirements. This is a policy that is fair, one that will help workers, will not deter job growth and is one that I am honored to support."

The City Council will also earmark a pot of money for the Economic Development Corporation so that they can negotiate living wage requirements with developers who receive city subsidies and want to build in the city. Negotiating the wage requirements for each project, Ms. Quinn said, is better than a cookie-cutter approach to legislation.

"Our city’s Economic Development Corporation must have a policy goal of negotiating development packages that result in not just the recipients of subsidies creating higher wage jobs, but also their tenants. That is what we negotiated with the Domino Sugar Factory project," Ms. Quinn said. "The power of a negotiating process is that it provides the ability to craft each deal differently."

In negotiating the deal, Ms. Quinn took a page out of Andrew Cuomo's playbook, giving each side half a loaf and setting aside incentives so that later on they could get a little more. Today's bill, for example was hailed by both living wage advocates like Stuart Appelbaum, head of the Retail Workers Department Store Union, and Kathy Wylde, head of the business coalition Partnership for New York City.

"It is difficult, and it is hard, and it is time consuming, with all of the different issues that she has to deal with to be able to listen to folks and to  be able to get to this point," said Ruben Diaz, Jr. the Bronx Borough President and one of the leading advocates for a minimum wage. "For that, Madame Speaker I want to say I thank you and respect you. On this issue you've done a great job allowing all of the voices to be heard."

The new bill is expected to cover around 75-80 percent of the number of people who would be covered by the original living wage bill, not including those that wage mandates that will be negotiated between EDC and developers over individual projects.

Ms. Quinn is considering running for mayor in 2013, and it was important to her political prospects to get this issue off of the table, since it would energize labor and progressive groups in opposition to her.

The bill now will go before Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who has signaled his objection to any kind of living wage mandate. Advocates though noted that by the time EDC negotiates contracts with developers over wage mandates, it is likely that new mayor--and a new EDC chief--will be running the negotiations.

Mayor Bloomberg (Photo: Getty)

In his State of the City address today, Mayor Bloomberg will propose something akin to splitting the baby on the living wage fight when he comes down in favor of a boost in the minimum wage.

"The genius of the free market is not always perfect," Bloomberg said, according to the prepared text of his speech. "Two of our neighbors – Connecticut and Massachusetts – have raised their minimum wage above the Federal standard to address higher costs of living. And so while we would prefer the Federal government to act to keep us competitive, this year, we will join Speaker Shelly Silver in pushing for a responsible raise in the minimum wage."

Living wage advocates have been fighting for years for a bill that would mandate that all projects that receive city subsidies pay employees who work in those new buildings at least $10/hour, or $11.50 without benefits.

The mayor does not give a dollar figure in his address, but it is safe to assume that it is less than $10/hour. It remains to be seen what effect this will have on the living wage bill, which currently sits on City Council speaker Christine Quinn's desk.

Earlier this month, Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver proposed a minimum wage of $8/hour.

The New York Times

In short, the former mayor is against it, even though he favors an increase in the minimum wage.

"I would support a national law creating a minimum wage of $10 plus benefits or $11.50 per hour without benefits, or any other reasonable increase for those at the minimum wage level.  But I would do so only if it applied to all states, not simply to New York City," he writes. 

Mr.  Koch goes on to urge lawmakers not to give in to the city's labor unions, and said he "fears" for a city in which labor holds undue sway again.

I hope the City Council is not emboldened to do what the labor unions are demanding of them – their role is to engage in collective bargaining -- especially now that the New York Times editorial board has given the City Council cover.  I truly fear for the future of this city as the pressures build on the candidates for Mayor and the City Council to support and enact such legislation, and the excesses of the days of “Fun City.”

The mayor cites the empty Kingsbridge Armory as an example of why businesses will flee the city if a living wage is enacted. During the Kingsbridge fight, the Council tried to force a living wage mandate on the developer, who resisted, and declined to build in the long-defunct site. It is worth noting however at the time that even some supporters of Kingsbridge said that the problem was requiring a living wage around one site in the entire city, something this legislation is designed to redress.

Full email from Hizzoner below:

The following is my response to a New York Times editorial of December 26, which endorses City Council legislation now being considered.  The legislation would provide for the so-called “Living Wage” law requiring developers who receive public subsidies of $1 million or more and those conducting business in the development to pay their workers wages substantially above the national minimum wage for the next ten years.

The Negative Impact of an Imposed Living Wage

The New York Times editorial of December 26, entitled “A Living Wage, Long Overdue” supports legislation pending before the City Council to require developers receiving public subsidies of $1 million or more to pay to the holders of full-time jobs a “living wage” defined as $10 per hour plus benefits or $11.50 per hour without benefits for at least ten years, which pay scale effectively for those developers seeking city subsidies to build becomes the city’s minimum wage, contrary to the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour now mandated and binding in the U.S.

Bizarrely, the Times editorial proposes an exception, stating, “The bill’s sponsors should also consider exempting grocery stores in areas that need fresh food markets.”  Why not exempt all projects in areas of the city desperately in need of jobs?  The unemployment rate for minorities in the country is double that of whites.  In black and Hispanic communities, the unemployment rate is over 18 percent.  Perhaps the Times writer is a vegan.

In support of its position, the Times cites an expert in Los Angeles which adopted a “living wage” law, “that he was unaware of any project that was cancelled because of the wage requirement.”  The Times editorial writer had only to look at the Times’ own news stories to learn that in the Bronx in 2007 when the City Council imposed such a requirement on a developer that would have developed the Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx into a retail mall making available 575,000 square feet, providing private sector construction jobs and permanent jobs in the businesses created, the developer withdrew its offer to go forward.  That Kingsbridge Armory remains undeveloped to the present day.  No jobs, no taxes, no upgrading of the neighborhood.

I would support a national law creating a minimum wage of $10 plus benefits or $11.50 per hour without benefits, or any other reasonable increase for those at the minimum wage level.  But I would do so only if it applied to all states, not simply to New York City.  We live in perilous times.  In Europe, the European Union is trying desperately to prevent five nations – Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain (PIIGS) from going bankrupt.  All of those nations apparently lived beyond their means, taking on national debt to provide services which they could not afford and creating private sector benefits raising the cost of doing business that helped bring these nations to their economic knees.  If raising the minimum wage to $10 and $11.50 is such a good idea, why didn’t the progressive Democrats do it nationally when they had majorities in both Houses?  Why didn’t the President at that time offer such a program?

Does it make sense for New York City to risk its economic future and see developers turning to New Jersey, Connecticut and other states in the Northeast, rather than come to New York City to build, creating construction jobs and permanent jobs in the new businesses established?  I hope the City Council is not emboldened to do what the labor unions are demanding of them – their role is to engage in collective bargaining -- especially now that the New York Times editorial board has given the City Council cover.  I truly fear for the future of this city as the pressures build on the candidates for Mayor and the City Council to support and enact such legislation, and the excesses of the days of “Fun City.”

Last night, public advocate Bill de Blasio announced his support for the living wage measure now before Council Speaker Christine Quinn. This morning, a coalition of groups who have been pushing the measure blasted Mr. de Blasio, saying that the timing of his announcement was political and saying they supported Ms. Quinn's deliberate process.

Now, a chief supporter of the living wage, Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, has rushed out his own support of Mr. de Blasio.

Says Mr. Diaz:

As a leader in the fight to bring a ‘living wage’ law to New York City, I enthusiastically welcome Public Advocate Bill de Blasio’s support for the ‘Fair Wages for New Yorkers’ Act. Public Advocate de Blasio has displayed a strong record of fighting for the rights of those underserved and often ignored residents of this City, and his support for this historic legislation is another great example of his commitment to justice and fairness for New Yorkers.

“For months, the public advocate met with individuals and organizations on all sides of this legislation as he engaged in a thoughtful, deliberative examination of the merits of this bill. After meeting with me personally last week, I am thrilled that he has joined the majority of our City in support of the ‘Fair Wages for New Yorkers’ Act. This further demonstrates that we are gaining momentum in our efforts to pass this important legislation.

Mr. de Blasio is a clear candidate in the 2013 mayoral race against Ms. Quinn, and it was unsurprising to have him come out in favor of the bill, especially after a poll came out showing that a majority of voters approve of the measure. More confusing however is why members of the Living Wage Coalition are blasting Mr. de Blasio for his support. Those I have spoken with say it really does have to do with the timing of his announcement and the sense that he was politicizing the bill, but others in political circles are scratching their heads over the matter, noting that pretty much everything in politics in politicized to one degree or another.

Last week, a Quinnipiac Poll new Quinnipiac Poll was released showing that New Yorkers of all political leanings support a “living wage.” Voters polled by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute said that the “Fair Wages for New Yorkers” Act, which is currently before the New York City Council, is a “good idea” by a wide margin of 74-19 percent.

The poll also found support strong for the bill across the political spectrum, with support for the bill among Republicans at 56-39 percent, among Democrats at 83-11 percent and among independents at 67-25 percen

The Cuomo administration is looking at using private and public pension funds in order to pay for infrastructure projects.

Michael Powell has a devastating look at the NYPD's crackdown on journalists.

Media organizations sent letters to the NYPD yesterday complaining of the treatment.

Many of the low-paid maids, truck drivers and janitors who donated to embattled Comptroller John Liu’s campaign coffers are connected to businessman Sam Chang, the budget hotel king of New York, Chuck Bennett reports.

The long delay between the Liu associate indicting on conspiracy and his admission of guilt leads one former prosecutor to say that "This is their opening salvo. They are indicating they have a lot more here. It's just Act One."

Jimmy Vielkind looks at how Eric Schneiderman and Andrew Cuomo have clashed over who has authority to police Albany's ethics.

Cuomo convened a group of outside advisers to talk about what to do for the state's budget in light of the failure of the super-committee.

A spat between the Port Authority and the 9/11 museum could delay the opening of the memorial by up to a year.

The living wage bill will get a hearing before the City Council today.

A new survey shows that most New York Democrats want a mayor who supports living wage.

A look at some of the 200 waivers the Conflict of Interests Board grants to city workers, including permitting Ray Kelly to work as a limousine driver and Cathie Black to receive an engraved silver tray from I.B.M.

House Beautiful names Christine Quinn "Design Visionary to Watch."

CUNY students protesting tuition hikes clashed with police.

Another poll puts Newt Gingrich on top.

Inspired by the High Line, two New Yorkers want to build the "Delancey Underground," an indoor subterranean park on the Lower East Side.

A look at Westbeth, which was supposed to be haven for young artists on the Far West Side, but became a permanent home to many.

Not a pander: Mitt Romney named New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte as a possible VP.

A "foreclosure mill" lawfirm is shutting down amid investigations by federal and state authorities.

The city sued "roll your own" cigarette shops.